Atheists....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I have no problem at all with faith - as I've said, I know some extremely clever christians who accept pretty much all scientific truths, including evolution, without any trouble to their faith at all. Those kind of people, who see a philosophical need for a god and have faith that he exists, I can admire. I can make an excellent case for god myself within those parameters, I just don't buy it.

---

That's OK.

Quote:

---

What irks me, and it's not just in religion, is wilful ignorance - the refusal to accept that gravity works, physics rules the physical universe and that the laws of mathematics cannot be broken. Creationists are among the worst at trying to avoid these things

And yes, mea culpa, my patience with them is thin!

---

I am a Christian, but that's not so relevant now. I am well educated and that's probably the main reason why I look and think different about some things; and those people probably aren't, and they can't understand some science things; and you should understand that. You don't have to respect that, but that will never change, especially at elderly population. My advice is to you: don't argue with them; you're probably intellectualy more superior above them and you won't prove nothing, their minds are not so open minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'm amazed at how often I get a sense of deja vu on this subject - I covered exactly that this morning. God is everything we would wish him to be - the ultimate big-daddy who not only kisses it all better, he also lets us live foreever! Who wouldn't love the guy?

---

Any condemned man given a reprieve has good reason to love the man who came and freed him, and - unbelievably - took the punishment meant for the man he'd set free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The human construct of the Abrahamic god/s is quite simple to acknowledge, but earlier than that, there were certainly religions which dealt with death as one of the subjects. That's one of the finer ironies in christianity - the only way to eternal life is through Jesus and god. Yeah, right. Thousands of years earlier, the only way to eternal life was through Osiris, Baal or other deity. There's nothing new in christianity, people have worshipped gods since they first realised they could think.

---

Other mythological "gods" who promised anything (if they did at all) offered no real hope to humanity; they had no clear mission on earth, no particular moral position and certainly did not claim the power to create as did God. They were mere pretenders to the throne. And, despite your cavalier assertion about Christianity, it is very different from most world religions, in a number of distinctive ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'm just loving the fact that a creationist denies that this is true, because I can prove, beyond any doubt that the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he are to believe in the sky-daddy, and conversely, the dumber he is, the more likely he will be to attend a church, be a creationist, an Amway salesman, or all of the foregoing.

---

A statement beyond absurdity. Spiritual belief does not imply deficiency in thinking unless one subscribes to Naturalism (which, from the Christian POV is its own particular form of ignorant blindness). The only person who would make such a statement would be someone whose idea of reality is one of considerable limitation. Such comments as yours ironically affirm the exact opposite of your words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I know some very clever christians, all of whom have a far different opinion of god and creation from fundies. The level of gullibility and doublethink required to be a creationist ensures that the lowest intellectual group will fall for it. Some of them may appear quite smart on the surface - I know a fundie with an IQ of 190, he has appeared on tv as "the human computer", yet he is a complete loser with no personality and is therefore able to practice doublethink on himself to ensure that he nevers asks questions, thus preserving the only social group he will ever fit into.

---

Ho-hum. This line of argument is nothing more than a collective ad hominem argument; apparently, what can't be refuted through a real argument will be assaulted through silly and unsubstantiated generalizations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Do we still mill corn and wheat by hand? Do we travel by donkey? Do we go to the toilet, or do it on the side of the road? I think that in this, at least the Amish are honest - they just ignore the past thousand years or so.

---

These things are not necessarily reflections of wisdom as much as perhaps necessity or the development of technology. Try not to confuse the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Because it keeps them in business. Money buys television time which sells product and brings in new believers who tithe more money so more tv time can be bought, etc.

---

This cynical view is common; in some cases deserved, in many, not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

god has always loved cash.

---

Beyond absurd. God does not need money. He who created all doesn't need cash. You understand as little of God as you accuse me of understanding about evolution.

Wow, there've been a lot of posts. Here goes - apologies if I overdo my attempts to be aphoristic:

1) The Bible has presumably not required editing (although it has changed) to remain applicable throughout the ages. Neither have horoscopes or fortune cookies. It would be absurd to say that Bible stories do not offer any moral value whatsoever to my philosophy, but I personally grant them the same weight as Aesop's fables - legitimate in theme, questionable as fact. But that's just me.

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

3) I am of the opinion that ancient religions and mythologies have the same weight as today's theisms regarding truth value, as from my perspective, they have the same extent of support - the faith of their followers, nothing more. You may, of course, feel free to think otherwise.

I think that's about everything out of me for the time being. :wave:

Quote:

---

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

---

I don't know if this was in my comment on faith. I intended to mean that the ability to have faith is the basis to believe. Believers and Atheists differ on the basis to accept something in their lives, or reject it. They both can have faith, but its where they place their faith.

Hi Robin - haven't heard from you in a while. Thanks for your balanced response. I fully agree with your 2nd point.

Doesn't religion mistake form for content? When we talk about deities or invisible spirits, are we not really discussing ideas like truth or justice? These concepts can be difficult to talk about. Often we use symbolic language that excites the soul more than reason, but once we commit ourself to the language of the discussion and not to the actual object don't we lose something. I generally like religious people, and I even identify with them--in that they actually hold ideals like truth and justice to be primary. But, I think that to restrict people to the standards and rules of a religion would be to make a mistake. People may begin to imagine that the strictures and plaudits of religious figures is more important than the ideals their religion stands for. This is the danger involved when people put form above content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Doesn't religion mistake form for content? When we talk about deities or invisible spirits, are we not really discussing ideas like truth or justice?

---

In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of truth and justice. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of truth and justice. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.

---

Is that really honest? We know of Justice and Truth before we accept the deity that explains them. People are not born with a religious identity--they do not have any a priori notion of a specific deity. I agree that there is a connection between cause and the effect. For example, I know that object fall to the earth and I believe that gravity causes this. But, and here's the distinction, I know that gravity is the one that I have invented. I accept gravity because it appeals to certain experiences, principles, and feelings. The idea of gravity helps me bring order to my experience and it satisfies me, but I don't pretend that this just is. Instead, I realize that it's a creation which works for now, but doesn't preclude possible changes--possibly even refutation. This is my problem with religion: it pretends that gravity is the reality and the objects falling to earth is the illusion. Suddenly it becomes more important to know about gravity than it is to know that things fall to the earth, and the truth is that gravity is just one of many invented theories. Aristotle believed that objects seek rest and that causes them to move toward the center of the earth. This was another explanation that was satisfying for a time, but it yielded its place when another was found that was closer to what people thought and felt. Just as there were many theories of objects falling to earth, there any many ways of talking about spirituality, truth, and justice, but unfortunately religions believe that their theories are more important that what is really being talked about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

In the case of God, we are discussing the origin and source of truth and justice. Without God, there's really no good reason for those two things to exist.

---

The fact that a society which contains those two things is in the best interests of all its denizens is a very good reason for those two things to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Is that really honest?

---

Absolutely. Lying is a sin - I'm trying to avoid sin wherever possible in my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

We know of Justice and Truth before we accept the deity that explains them.

---

Sure - but we also learn what love is before we have a name for it. Most things we learn of before we have a name or idea as to where they came from. That we understand the concepts first doesn't necessarily mean that they exist independently. All good things in this world - truth, justice, love, mercy, compassion, charity, hope, faith, kindness, etc - are all qualities of God; they are reflections of His perfect character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

People are not born with a religious identity--they do not have any a priori notion of a specific deity.

---

The first statement is true; according to the Bible, the second is false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I agree that there is a connection between cause and the effect. For example, I know that object fall to the earth and I believe that gravity causes this.

---

Me too. (*audible gasps from the evolutionists in the crowd who think Christians don't acknowledge the validity of science*).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

But, and here's the distinction, I know that gravity is the one that I have invented. I accept gravity because it appeals to certain experiences, principles, and feelings. The idea of gravity helps me bring order to my experience and it satisfies me, but I don't pretend that this just is.

---

What? Here's where my jaw drops. Gravity is - period. It is not a concept because if you decide to disbelieve in it, guess what? It still "works." Either I'm missing some subtlety in your argument (highly possible) or you just went off into some mystery land where reality gets to obey your thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Instead, I realize that it's a creation which works for now, but doesn't preclude possible changes--possibly even refutation.

---

I have argued a version of this point as well - but I don't think that means that what is now is not real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

This is my problem with religion: it pretends that gravity is the reality and the objects falling to earth is the illusion. Suddenly it becomes more important to know about gravity than it is to know that things fall to the earth, and the truth is that gravity is just one of many invented theories. Aristotle believed that objects seek rest and that causes them to move toward the center of the earth. This was another explanation that was satisfying for a time, but it yielded its place when another was found that was closer to what people thought and felt. Just as there were many theories of objects falling to earth, there any many ways of talking about spirituality, truth, and justice, but unfortunately religions believe that their theories are more important that what is really being talked about.

---

Sorry - you lost me here. I don't get the analogy at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

The fact that a society which contains those two things is in the best interests of all its denizens is a very good reason for those two things to exist.

---

A practical reason yes; but there's no reason they have to exist instead of some other "regulators" or "maintainers" of society. Without God, nothing has to be as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

A practical reason yes; but there's no reason they have to exist instead of some other "regulators" or "maintainers" of society.

---

How about the fact that they're the ones that work the best?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Without God, nothing has to be as it is.

---

With God, there's no particular reason for everything to be as it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

How about the fact that they're the ones that work the best?

---

That something turns out to be efficient does not necessarily mean that it had to exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

With God, there's no particular reason for everything to be as it is.

---

Too vague for me to comment on without risk of falling into some sort of easily refuted error. Care to clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

That something turns out to be efficient does not necessarily mean that it had to exist.

---

No, but it means that it was probably going to turn up sooner or later. Evolution doesn't just happen to genes, you know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red

Too vague for me to comment on without risk of falling into some sort of easily refuted error. Care to clarify?

---

You said: without God there is no particular reason for everything to be the way it is at the moment (unless I'm badly misreading you, which is entirely possible). My position is that, with or without deities, if you ask why? enough times, you're eventually going to have to come to the conclusion that things are pretty arbitrary.

Examples:

"Why does that animal have that particular feature?"
"It evolved that way because it gives it an advantage over that other animal in competing for food."
"Why?"
"It uses energy more efficiently that way?"
"Why is that an advantage?"
"Because energy is need to sustain life."
"Why?"
"...just because."

Alternatively:

"Why does that animal have that feature?"
"Because God designed it that way?"
"Why that way and not some other way?"
"...just because."

You can do this with just about any feature of the universe, justice included.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

No, but it means that it was probably going to turn up sooner or later. Evolution doesn't just happen to genes, you know.

---

Fine - but that still doesn't mean that it had to exist. That it does suggests to me something more than just "moral evolution" of some sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

You said: without God there is no particular reason for everything to be the way it is at the moment (unless I'm badly misreading you, which is entirely possible). My position is that, with or without deities, if you ask why? enough times, you're eventually going to have to come to the conclusion that things are pretty arbitrary.

Examples:

"Why does that animal have that particular feature?"
"It evolved that way because it gives it an advantage over that other animal in competing for food."
"Why?"
"It uses energy more efficiently that way?"
"Why is that an advantage?"
"Because energy is need to sustain life."
"Why?"
"...just because."

Alternatively:

"Why does that animal have that feature?"
"Because God designed it that way?"
"Why that way and not some other way?"
"...just because."

You can do this with just about any feature of the universe, justice included.

---

You have radically simplified the Christian response; this is where science comes in handy because ID tells us how perfectly God's creation is suited for what it does and where it lives. Only the most stunted of Christians does the "God designed it - just because" two-step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bazarov

I am a Christian, but that's not so relevant now. I am well educated and that's probably the main reason why I look and think different about some things; and those people probably aren't, and they can't understand some science things; and you should understand that. You don't have to respect that, but that will never change, especially at elderly population. My advice is to you: don't argue with them; you're probably intellectualy more superior above them and you won't prove nothing, their minds are not so open minded.

---

Thanks!

I do try to avoid getting into this type of debate with creationists, but sometimes, I slip! I'm certainly not surprised that you are a more thoughtful christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinHood3000

Wow, there've been a lot of posts. Here goes - apologies if I overdo my attempts to be aphoristic:

1) The Bible has presumably not required editing (although it has changed) to remain applicable throughout the ages. Neither have horoscopes or fortune cookies. It would be absurd to say that Bible stories do not offer any moral value whatsoever to my philosophy, but I personally grant them the same weight as Aesop's fables - legitimate in theme, questionable as fact. But that's just me.

2) Faith is no indicator of intelligence level, period. Religion does occasionally compromise the willingness of some to listen to logic, but then again, so can atheism.

3) I am of the opinion that ancient religions and mythologies have the same weight as today's theisms regarding truth value, as from my perspective, they have the same extent of support - the faith of their followers, nothing more. You may, of course, feel free to think otherwise.

I think that's about everything out of me for the time being. :wave:

---

Extremely well put, but I would argue the religion/intelligence ratio. There are several studies I can dig up links to, if you like. Obviously, it isn't a perfect indicator, but in general terms, the premise is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Beyond absurd. God does not need money. He who created all doesn't need cash. You understand as little of God as you accuse me of understanding about evolution.

---

Hey, I'm just telling you what the bible says - no secret to it. If you want a few chapter numbers, let me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Since I rarely see you make any real case here (but I do see you dismiss other people's) why don't you lay out your "excellent case for [G]od" - I would love to read it.

---

I may do that, if I have the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You know little about Christians - perhaps you ought to hang around some and listen to them on occasion so that you might stop making such ill-informed statements about them.

---

As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

We acknowledge science's veracity in many areas (Christians who deny that gravity works would be denying the existence of God - because He created gravity).

---

That is truly priceless!

We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Your comments are based largely on your non-stop begging-the-question of the truth about evolution. Once again: you have a theory, with some pieces of "evidence" that appear to support that theory. Congratulations. Quit pretending that evolution is equal to gravity - to do so seriously puts to doubt your credibility as a spokesman/woman for evolution.

---

Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.

Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+% of its membership totally accepts evolution.

I am one serious atheist. Spirituality doesn't bother me... but organized religion causes so much **** it bothers me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I may do that, if I have the time.

---

Please do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As it happens, I had a uncle who held a PhD in divinity and who was a Canon in the Anglican Church. I'll back my knowledge of religion any day.

---

Knowledge of "religion" is not the same as knowledge of God. Either way, your generalizations about Christianity are not part of how much "book knowledge" you have about the Bible - it is due to your unfair stereotyping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

That is truly priceless!

We know far less about gravity than evolution, yet you accept it without question.

---

Gravity is here, now. We can study it here, now. Evolution is neither. Only its so-called "traces" are left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Again, I would never pretend to lump evolution with gravity - we understand the entire process of evolution, aside from abiogenesis, yet know very little about gravity.

---

Edit: "We understand the entire [suggested/hypothesized/sepculated] process of evolution."

Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Also, please note that evolution isn't "my theory", it is an accepted science which is backed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. That's not an appeal to authority, it's just a fact. If I were to appeal to authority, I'd choose the NAS, of which some 93+% of its membership totally accepts evolution.

---

The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong. Few people thought the Wright Brothers were sane. A university physics professor condemned their experiement as ludicrous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The majority doesn't always rule. It's possible for the majority to be wrong.

---

Reminds me of Christianity :lol:

The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Reminds me of Christianity :lol:

The theory of evolution isn't politically or religiously driven, and to me that makes it more credible than most theories.

---

It is ideologically driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Yeah - the abiogenesis thing is a problem, isn't it?

---

Nope, it's not a problem at all.

See, as someone who follows science rather than a 4000-year old book of just-so stories, I have no problem at all with an admission that our knowledge of something is imperfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

It is ideologically driven, which places it in the same category as religion and politics.

---

Wrong.

Evolution is driven by fact and research, unlike creationism which is driven by assertion and lies or religion, which is driven by fear.

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

In Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, Levin finds himself in a spiritual crisis. He fears that life is meaningless and death will soon destroy every accomplishment that man has produced. He intends to shelter himself from this doubt--or at least find some expression of it--in philosophy. However, this quickly fails. Tolstoy recounts Levin's experience:

"Their ideas seemed to him fruitful when he was reading or was himself seeking arguments to refute other theories, especially those of the materialists; but as soon as he began to read or sought for himself a solution of problems, the same thing always happened. As long as he followed the fixed definition of obscure words such as SPIRIT, WILL, FREEDOM, ESSENCE, purposely letting himself go into the snare of words the philosophers set for him, he seemed to comprehend something. But he had only to forget the artificial train of reasoning, and to turn from life itself to what had satisfied him while thinking in accordance with the fixed definitions, and all this artificial edifice fell to pieces at once like a house of cards, and it became clear that the edifice had been built up out of those transposed words"

Levin rejects philosophy because it is an artificial interpretation of what he feels. It uses words and symbols to replace what he already knows. In the same way, Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.

I THINK what Quark was trying to say on the last page about gravity is that gravity as a concept is nothing but a human construct. We do not observe gravity objectively - we observe the apple falling towards the center of the earth under the force of what we CALL gravity, which (if you want to get technical about the matter) manifests via the exchange of particles called gravitons. We believe firmly in gravity, and for practical purposes so far, it works great. But we used to think the Sun orbited around the Earth, too. However, scientists are willing to acknowledge the limitations of science. Theists are generally less so regarding their respective religious texts - depending on who you are, this could be because a) you believe aren't any flaws, or b) you believe said theist is too dense to see them.

Regarding abiogenesis - it's the same thing. Science acknowledges its limitations on this front - which are not as bad as you might think. Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).

And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics). Besides which, knowing that someone is a theist is not grounds for anyone to treat him/her like an idiot. If they open their mouths and say something stupid, then they may proceed to form opinions at will. But that applies to followers of any belief system, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

---

I'll answer that as soon as you can tell me what theists believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin

Experimentation has shown that primordial chemicals + energy can produce simple organic compounds (if memory serves, amino acids).

---

Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robin

And regarding the faith-intelligence relationship: statistics may say that if you randomly select a theist and compare him/her to a randomly-selected atheist, the theist will probably be dumber. But correlation does not imply causation (one of the most important laws of statistics).

---

Alternate view: a person holding a PhD in molecular biology is more likely than the general population to be 1) a genius and 2) an atheist, thus skewing the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Before this completely devolves into a another evolution vs. creationism debate I'd like to answer the actual thread question: what do Atheists believe?

---

That's precisely the same as asking, "What do philatelists believe?"

"Atheism" isn't a belief system, it simply signifies lack of belief in god/s. Atheists can be rationalists, humanists, anarchists, Buddhists, Universal Unitarians, polytheists and UFO nutters, among others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Atheists reject religion as a false and misleading representation of human ideas. Perhaps I wouldn't go as far as Levin and say that we don't need any representation, but I would maintain that the ideas are more important than the representation.

---

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them. Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true.

---

Couldn't agree more, and would extend it to other forms of theism, as well. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9

Memory serves. Miller and Urey, 1953.

---

The results consisted only of a few amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.

Other notes: Miller and Urey artificially blocked out oxygen and "trapped" only the amino acids favorable to life. There is no way to explain how this could have happened on the early earth.

It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have eliminated early life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The results consisted only of a few amino acids - very far from the complex protiens, nucleotides, and organized information necessary for life. This is said to be the equivalent of manufacturing a drop of ink and claiming you have created the building block for an encylopaedia.

---

Early monocellular organisms are also very far from modern-day forms of life. Just because it's far doesn't mean it isn't traversible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

It is rarely mentioned that the vast majority of components produced in these experiments were destructive "tar" - which would have eliminated early life.

---

I'm a little unclear on this - what exactly constitutes this "tar"? Given that oxygen is basic to some life and deadly to others, I'm a little leery of saying that any one substance is inherently destructive to life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

See, as someone who follows science rather than a 4000-year old book of just-so stories, I have no problem at all with an admission that our knowledge of something is imperfect.

Evolution is driven by fact and research, unlike creationism which is driven by assertion and lies or religion, which is driven by fear.

---

I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell. If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view. If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You're a little off-track here as well. Most atheists reject religion because the idea of god is quite preposterous to them.

---

Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Many still accept that religion can do good and that the ideals and mores proposed by christianity actually true

---

I never argued the contrary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

I objected because I thought this argument was turning into a discussion about the physical existence of God or Heaven or Hell.

---

Unfortunately, any discussion of this kind inevitably does. When one side only has the bible and the bible's the word of a god, then there isn't actually a lot of room to manoever away from "goddidit".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

If you think you can settle this with an atheist and Christian in the room--good luck. You can throw evidence back and forth, but everyone will just interpret it in accordance with their predetermined world view.

---

No, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. I know of many christians who would take the same view as me - that evolution is virtually unchallengeable. There is no evidence back and forth, either - the evidence is all one way. A person's predetrmined world view only affects the ability to interpret facts and evidence when that evidence is contrary to a belief. Since atheists don't have a belief to contradict, their support for evolution is based upon the facts, not what they wish to find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

If any progress is to made, it's to be done on the philosophical, and perhaps even personal, level. We need to approach the real underpinnings of belief whether that's a belief in Christ or in science. Why does scientific research trump the Bible?

---

In two words - Thomas Aquinas. "Truth cannot contradict truth". This is why the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches accept evolution - to deny it is to ignore a large amount of factual evidence. Rowan Williams and Pope Benedict have no doubt that the earth is billions, not thousands of years old and that life has evolved from single-celled organisms. This is the problem - not christianity, but people who cannot accept factual evidence. The bible and science or religion and science can work alongside each other as long as they do not contradict each other. Science can never disprove god, but it can most certainly disprove young-earth-creationism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quark

Once again, this doesn't answer anything. Of course Atheist think that the idea of God is preposterous. The real question is why. If I'm off track for trying to answer that question, and the right track is a discussion on the merits of Evolution or Creationism, then the right track should be abandoned.

---

Well, I'd be surprised if anything ever changes - evolutionists have presented evidence, creationists have ignored it and presented not a single piece in support of creationism.

Same old, same old...

it may sound naive, but i think it's easier to believe: we have some reason for living and behaving "well" ;). If there is no life after death, then all the sins wouldn't be so much forbidden anymore. why to try be human if there is no reward? Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durgamol

why to try be human if there is no reward?

---

That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?

Quote:

---

Why not to revenge if it will make me feel better and there will be no punishment?

---

Revenge is easy.

Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

That is the CHALLENGE isn't it Durgamol? To be human without expecting a reward. Are you ready to take up that challenge?



Revenge is easy.

Hardest thing is to learn to Forgive.

---

what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no, if there are no "upper" rules? As i said i know it is easier to live like this. And naive. But people are finding being cruel as something natural - it comes too easy to hurt someone. So it is better to believe something not completely rational then not to believe anything and care only about myself.
the question i was asking myself since is: how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others. How someone can kill and say that believes? i don't get it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durgamol

what i mean is: how should we know what is good and what is no

---

"Good" is anything that minimises suffering? Is not that A Criteria to go by?

Quote:

---

how someone can believe in god, be religious and still purposely hurt others.

---

It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lote-Tree

It is quite easy. In order for someone to hurt someone else - that person needs to dehumanise that person in his mind. And religion can do that quite easily by separating believers from the Unbelievers into two separate camps. Once this is done - it is easy to strip away the humanity of the people in the other camp...until they become less than human...and thus easy to hurt them...

---

That is probably a mechanism. You put it in words really well. But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive ;)

The debate on existence vs. non existence of God has been as old as mankind itself. i was treated to many interesting arguments in this thread - i only have this to add. Several Scientists have attempted to analyze the "force" that rules this universe - and only culminated in the view point that finally all is one - a view echoed by ancient Chinese and Indian philosophies.
i suggest that you read one or all of these books and it will pass for an interesting reading leave alone solve the debate of theism vs. atheism:
"The Tau of Physics" - Fritjoff Kapra
"The dancing Wu-Li Masters" - Gary Zukav

I think that there is also an atheistic ethic, not only a religious one. I do not believe in god but I don't think it's right to kill people, not because I follow some rule, but because I respect life, mine and other people's. :alien:

I think one should be a little crazy to believe in god (look at tom cruise!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Durgamol

But i found it too cynical to accept, as i mentioned before when it comes to faith i am a bit naive ;)

---

To have FAITH is a form of naievety too :-)

The challenge Durgamol is to be human without the reward that faith promises (faith need to be abandoned - but can be transcended). To embrace humanity for all it's beauty and ugliness. To celeberate the best of humanity with pride and also come to terms with worst of humanity with understanding.

Are you up for that challenge :-)